Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1459 (ALL)

Jagat Narain Sharma v. Garima Gautam

2022-09-12

PIYUSH AGRAWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. Notices upon respondent nos. 1 to 7 are deemed to be sufficient in view of order dated 26.5.2022. 2. This is plaintiff's appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Buandshahr arising out of Original Suit No. 884 of 2006 (Jagat Narain Sharma (deceased) through L.R's vs. Garima Gautam and others). 2. It transpires from the record that the plaintiff, Jagat Narain Sharma were three brothers and two sisters, out of whom two brothers and the sister, namely, Veer Narain Sharma, Roop Narain Sharma and Krishna Sharma are no more. Now only the appellant and his sister Ms. Anoop Gautam are alive. Veer Narain Sharma left the State of U.P. And settled at Rajasthan where he purchased Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, Park Saroj Apartment, Plot No. R/7, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan). After death of Veer Narain Sharma the plaintiff sought for declaring himself to be Class II successor under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as there was no Class I legal heir-succesor of Veer Narain Sharma. Along with the suit details of assets were filed as Schedule Aa, Ba, and Sa. Schedule Aa prescribes the residential area, Schedule Ba prescribes for agricultural land and Schedule Sa prescribes flat and land at Jaipur. Certain other moveable and immoveable properties, bank accounts etc. have also been mentioned at Broklain, New York and L.I.C. Policies. The daughter of the deceased sister of Veer Narain Sharma contested the suit as defendant no.2, sofar as Jaipur properties were concerned and filed her written statement. In sofar as other defendants are concerned, they conceded the property mentioned at Schedule Aa and Ba and contested the suit with regard to property at Schedule Sa. 3. On the basis of the statements of the parties the court below framed the following questions: 1% D;k oknhx.k oknirz esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ?kks"k.kkRed vkKkfIr ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSsa 2% D;k oknhx.k dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS 4. From the record it further reveals that the court below has decided the question no.1 and on the basis of question no.1 decided the question no.2 as well. From the record it further reveals that the court below has decided the question no.1 and on the basis of question no.1 decided the question no.2 as well. While deciding the question no.1 the court had rejected the suit on the ground that as per section 20 C.P.C. the suit should have been instituted where the defendant resides, i.e. Jaipur. The court further held that since there was no other dispute with regard to the property mentioned at Schedule Aa, Ba and Sa, the suit was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the suit. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that as per provisions of Section 17, C.P.C. the suit was rightly filed and submitted that suit for immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts then the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of such property is situated. Since part of the property of the deceased is situated within the jurisdiction of Bulandshahr the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. He further submitted that the court below never framed the question of jurisdiction and, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the suit as not maintainable since it does not fall within the jurisdiction of court below. 6. After hearing the counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record the only issue falls for consideration in this appeal is whether in view of Section 17, C.P.C. the court was justified in rejecting the suit on the ground of maintainability without even framing the issue about the jurisdiction. 7. Before proceeding further it may be appropriate to go through Sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C, which reads here under: “Section 16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate. 7. Before proceeding further it may be appropriate to go through Sections 16, 17 and 20, C.P.C, which reads here under: “Section 16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate. Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits, (b) for the partition of immovable property, (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property, (d) or the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property, (f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate: Section 17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts. Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts. the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate : Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 8. Section 16 prescribes that various categories of suit may be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. 8. Section 16 prescribes that various categories of suit may be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Section 17 prescribes that where the property is situated within the jurisdiction of different courts the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of such property is situated. Section 20 prescribes that subject to limitations every suit shall be instituted in a court within local limits of whose jurisdiction where the defendant resides or the cause of action arises. 9. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring himself to be Class II successor over the entire estate of his deceased brother. The details of the properties spread over at the different places were disclosed as Schedule Aa, Ba, and Sa and one of such property is situated within the jurisdiction of district Bulandshahr. The property which was contested by respondent no.2 were situated at Jaipur, Rajasthan. One of the properties was situated at Delhi, therefore, the suit was rightly instituted before the court concerned. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivnarayan (D) by L.Rs. vs. Maniklal (D) thr. L.Rs. and others in Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2019 decided on 6.2.2019 has specifically held that a suit can be filed at a particular court pertaining to properties situated within the jurisdiction of different courts clubbing them together. Further this Court in Sandeep Jain vs. Suresh Chandra Jain and others (First Appeal No. 828 of 1999 decided on 3.4.2000). has held that the suit property situated within the local area of different courts can be instituted in a court where one or other immovable property is situated. 10 The court below has failed to appreciate the fact that one of the properties was situated within the jurisdiction of court at Bulandshahr and others were situated at Delhi and Jaipur Rajasthan, therefore, the appellants under the provision of Section 17 have rightly instituted the suit before the jurisdiction of the Bulandshahr court. It is further observed that merely because other defendants have not contested the suit with regard to other properties and only the property at Jaipur was contested that was outside the jurisdiction of Bulandshahr court will not bar the jurisdiction of Bulandshahr court. It is further observed that merely because other defendants have not contested the suit with regard to other properties and only the property at Jaipur was contested that was outside the jurisdiction of Bulandshahr court will not bar the jurisdiction of Bulandshahr court. The appellants have rightly instituted the suit within the jurisdiction of the Bulandshahr court as the properties spread over at different places of his deceased brother Veer Narain Sharma. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Buandshahr arising out of Original Suit No. 884 of 2006 is hereby set aside. 12. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.